After reading the articles and viewing the videos in this weeks r.docx

After reading the articles and viewing the videos in this week's
resources, prepare a paper in which you address the following:
Demonstrate your understanding of decision-making.
· Evaluate the role that personal ethics plays in making
decisions.
· Analyze the decision-making techniques that can be applied in
different types of organizations.
· Select an organization where unethical decision-making
resulted in negative consequences.
· Using two decision-making techniques, compare and contrast
how using the techniques may have resulted in a positive
consequence.
Support your paper with minimum of three (3) scholarly
resources. In addition to these specified resources, other
appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be
included.
Length: 5-7 pages not including title and reference pages.
Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the
ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new
thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your
response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA
standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University's
Academic Integrity Policy.
Article
Leader Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations: Strategies for
Sensemaking
Chase E. Thiel • Zhanna Bagdasarov • Lauren Harkrider • James
F. Johnson • Michael D. Mumford
Published online: 4 April 2012 Springer Science+Business
Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Organizational leaders face environmental challenges
and pressures that put them under ethical risk. Navigating this
ethical risk is demanding given the dynamics of contemporary
organizations. Traditional models of ethical decision-making

(EDM) are an inadequate framework for understanding how
leaders respond to ethical dilemmas under conditions of
uncertainty and equivocality. Sensemaking models more
accurately illustrate leader EDM and account for individual,
social, and environmental constraints. Using the sensemaking
approach as a foundation, previous EDM models are revised and
extended to comprise a conceptual model of leader EDM.
Moreover, the underlying factors in the model are highlighted—
constraints and strategies. Four trainable, compensatory
strategies (emotion regulation, self-reflection, forecasting, and
information integration) are proposed and described that aid
leaders in navigating ethical dilemmas in organizations.
Empirical examinations demonstrate that tactical application of
the strategies may aid leaders in making sense of complex and
ambiguous ethical dilemmas and promote ethical behavior.
Compensatory tactics such as these should be central to
organizational ethics initiatives at the leader level.
Keywords Cognitive strategies Ethical behavior Ethical
decision-making Leadership Sensemaking
Corporate and financial misconduct amidst the recent world
financial crises, such as the predatory subprime lending
practices of Ameriquest, Goldman Sachs, and IndyMac Bank,
have left few wondering whether ethics in leadership should be
of greater focus moving forward (Muolo and Padilla 2010;
Paletta and Enrich 2008). Government and public officials
including the Securities and Exchange Commission and The
United States Senate have questioned organizational leaders
over their dubious and, seemingly, misguided decision-making
(Pulliam et al. 2010; Securities and Exchange Commission
2010). They wonder how such gross misconduct could occur
even when organizational policies and guidelines exist to
safeguard against unethical practices. Is it because today’s
leaders have less integrity and are prone to behave unethically?
Under the rationalist or moral reasoning approach to leader
ethical decision-making (EDM) such a conclusion might be
accepted. EDM theories grounded in moral reasoning arguments

posit that leaders first recognize ethical problems and then apply
their moral code or principles to ethical situations (e.g., Jones
1991; Kohlberg 1981, 1984; Rest 1986)—suggesting that
leaders today are either ignorant of the ethical dilemmas present
in complex organizations or that leaders possess values or
internal codes of conduct that are ‘‘less ethical.’’ The limitation
of this theoretical approach, as demonstrated by Sonenshein
(2007), is that ethical awareness is grossly misunderstood and
under simplified. Moreover, intuitive processes are not
recognized or integrated. Sonenshein and others have provided
an alternative framework, one grounded in sense making, which
lays a foundation for attributing constraining factors to leader
EDM and for proposing compensating strategies. Rather than
suggest ethical misconduct occurs because leaders today possess
less ethical values, ethical misconduct may stem from the
difficulties leaders have with accurately making sense of the
dynamic business environment or other cognitive limitations.
Sensemaking is the complex cognitive process engaged in when
one is faced with complex and high-risk situations (Drazinetal.
1999;Weick1995).Individualandsocialfactors appreciably
influence sensemaking as environmental complexity increases.
Given that contemporary organizations are defined by less
structure and are generally more fluid and
transitional(Barkemaetal.2002;SchneiderandSomers2006; Uhl-
Bien et al. 2007), current leaders may be more prone to
unethicalbehaviorbecausetheyfaceethicaldilemmasthatare simply
more difficult to navigate. Sonenshein’s (2007) model addresses
the pervasiveness of organizational uncertainty and equivocality
and the processes through which individuals manage these
conditions. Throughout this paper we arguethat leader EDM is
better understood through a sensemaking perspective, which
incorporates how leaders uniquely construct and make sense of
ethical issues amidst complex
environments.Wealsoarguethatleadersareunderexceptionalethical
risk that requires accurate sensemaking for EDM to be
effectively executed. While sensemaking models of EDM (e.g.,

Mumford et al. 2008; Sonenshein 2007) are instrumental in
understanding leader EDM in contemporary organizations, they
are, however, limited by a lack of emphasis on or incorporation
of compensating tactics that promote accurate sensemaking, and
subsequent EDM for leaders. These models also fail to
adequately represent leader-specific ethical dilemmas and the
unique ethical risks or constraints facing leaders. The purpose
behind our model is to elaborate upon unique constraints facing
leaders as an introduction to tactics that compensate for these
constraints. Thus, the second purpose
of this paper is to describe four cognitive strategies that are
thought to improve leaders’ ability to effectively make sense of
their environments during EDM. These strategies are discussed
relative to their influence on the relationship between leader
constraints and sensemaking. Moreover, we highlight the tactics
that influence strategy effectiveness.
Relativetothesestrategies,wearguethatinsteadofpassively relying
solely on individual values or moral codes at the leader level,
organizations can take a more proactive approach, developing
leaders’ sensemaking skills which should help them more
comprehensively understand ethical issues and lead to more
ethical decisions. Although many additional trainable strategies
may exist for improving sensemaking, the scope of the current
paper is limited to the four strategies depicted in Fig. 1 which
have all shown empirical support for improving EDM. Ethical
decision as defined by this model recognizesthree important
dimensions (Stenmark and Mumford 2011). First, it includes a
regard for the welfare of others, including intentionally helping
and respecting the rights of others (Darke and Chaiken 2005).
Second,itincludesanawarenessofsocialobligationssuchas
respecting cultural norms and values as well as performing
duties appropriate for a given social position (Schweitzer et al.
2005;U ¨nal et al. 2012). Finally, it involves recognizing
personal responsibility (Mumford et al. 2008).
From Rational to Sensemaking Models of EDM
Ethical dilemmas are ill-defined problems that have highstakes

consequences. Navigating ethical dilemmas requires recognition
and proper representation of multiple pieces of information. It
also requires intuitive judgment about potential outcomes.
Considering the multifaceted nature of ethical events,
researchers have proposed moving beyond rational models to
those that address intuitive and interpersonal components of
EDM (Detert et al. 2008; Gaudine and Thorne 2001; Haidt
2001; Henik 2008; Mumford et al. 2008; Reynolds 2006;
Woiceshyn 2011). These researchers have suggested that a
sensemaking perspective better represents how individuals
recognize and respond to ethical events in organizations.
Moreover, rational models have been criticized for not
adequately accounting for the issueconstruction processes that
are ever-present in EDM and an over-emphasis on moral
reasoning as the basis for ethical judgments. Sonenshein (2007)
suggested that individuals may not always apply value-based
moral reasoning. Moreover, increasing evidence shows that
individuals often rely upon intuitions or are influenced by non-
conscious processes in EDM (Haidt 2001; Woiceshyn 2011),
and that moral reasoning is rarely the cause for ethical
judgment, but rather imputed for post hoc explanations (Zajonc
1980). Recognizing the ill-defined nature of ethical dilemmas
and the limitations of rationalist models for accounting for
realworld ethical events, Sonenshein suggested that a more fluid
model was needed to more accurately portray how individuals
make ethical decisions. Rationalist ethical models also
underemphasize the importance of how leaders construct and
interpret ethical situations in the first place. Although Jones’
(1991) and Rest’s (1986) models list problem recognition as the
first component to determining ethical behavior, these models
typically fail to address the variety of interpretations leaders
can construct from a single problem (Mumford et al. 2008;
Sonenshein 2007). Sonenshein (2007), conversely, suggested
that individuals uniquely construct ethical issues based on the
equivocal and uncertain environments and instantaneously make
intuitive judgments. Sensemaking models of EDM may more

accurately represent leader EDM, however. The actual
sensemaking process is a multi-faceted process that can be
executed more or less effectively (Weick 1995). During
sensemaking, individuals engage in multiple complex cognitive
processes. First, individuals recognize problems by comparing
current and prior situational elements (Reiter-Palmon et al.
1997; Weick et al. 2005). Next, mental models are formed via
interpretation of the current situation (Johnson-Laird 1983).
Finally, the formation of mental models serves as a framework
for information gathering, information evaluation, and
contingency planning. Mental representations dictate the extent
to which information is attended to and how one will react to
that information. Additionally, both internal and external
factors can influence the execution of these steps in EDM
(Mumford et al. 2008).
The inclusion of sensemaking expands current ethical models by
acknowledging that the construction of ethical problems from
equivocal and uncertain environments is important for
influencing leaders’ ethical behaviors and recognizes that
leaders can construct unique interpretations of the same ethical
situation. If sensemaking is faulty, the situation will not be
adequately constructed, making it difficult for leaders to
understand how to respond to the ethical issue. Therefore,
relying on value-based moral reasoning to decide whether a
course of action is morally right or wrong may not be the most
important factor for predicting ethical behavior and may not
even be possible in situationally strong complex environments;
instead, adequately making sense of the situation is paramount
for facilitating EDM and behavior.
Leaders Under Ethical Risk
From a constructivist viewpoint, sensemaking is critical to
leader EDM because ethical dilemmas are inherently complex,
have ambiguous implications, and are often difficult to
recognize. Moreover, an organizational backdrop complicates
recognition and representation of ethical events as these
environmental circumstances are increasingly complex. For

example, factors such as globalization, technology, legislation,
workforce diversity, decentralization, increased knowledge
workers, and need for rapid changes and adaptability all
contribute to the increased complexities and ambiguities
associated with today’s work environment (Gomez-Mejia et al.
2010; Yukl 2010). In fact, the Center for Creative Leadership
(CCL) recognized that this increasingly complex and dynamic
environment has posed many challenges for leaders because
they are at the center of these complexities, tasked with
managing transitional projects, partnerships, and individuals
(Martin 2007). The extreme demands placed on leaders and the
skills required for leading in complex social environments have
been well described in the complexity theory (Marion 1999;
Marion and Uhl-Bien 2001, Mathews et al. 1999; Wheatley
1992). Contemporary organizations are dynamic and lack the
systematic balance that gave structure to more traditional
management roles. Thus, leaders are often faced with ill-deﬁned
problems that require interpretation and decision-making at very
complex levels (Fleishman et al. 1991; Mumford and Connelly
1991; Mumford et al. 2000). Pressure is placed on
organizational leaders to perform at a high level under these
uncertain and equivocal conditions, solving problems and
making quality decisions while maintaining ethical standards.
Moreover, perceived leader ethicality inﬂuences ethical
behavior at lower levels of the organization (White and Lean
2008). Under these conditions, leaders are faced with ethical
risk.
Leader Ethical Decision-Making 51
123
The discretionary decisions made by leaders are inherently
ethical because of the far-reaching and high-stakes
consequences these decisions may have for individuals
internaland external totheleader’s organization(Aveyet al. 2012;
Brown et al. 2005; Den Hartog and Beschak 2012; Messick and
Bazerman 1996). These ethical decisions are challenging to
make under such complex and ambiguous circumstances, as are

other types of decisions leaders make. Situational factors
induced by the culture or climate of an organization create
explicit and implicit pressures on leaders, making it more
difficult to manage situations with ethical implications (Loe et
al. 2000). Often leaders must manage situations with competing
objectives and underlying goals. If leaders fail to adequately
represent a situation, a poor decision may result because critical
aspects of the situation were not fully represented or
considered. When discussing leadership and EDM it is
important to draw a distinction between ethical leadership and
leader EDM. Whereas leader EDM relates to the process by
which leaders recognize and respond to ethical dilemmas, and
addresses causal factors of EDM, ethical leadership refers to the
perceived appropriateness of a leader’s behavior in workplace
relationships (Brown et al. 2005), which are mostly anecdotal
(Brown and Trevin õ 2006). Examining leader behavior from
this perspective is useful for understanding reactions to the
leader, but do not address the EDM process and its causal
factors (Padilla et al. 2007, Schminke et al. 2005). Ethical
leadership rests on the perceived ethicality of a leader’s
decisions (Brown et al. 2005), and decisions can be influenced
by factors other than the leader’s personal characteristics
(Bersoff 1999; Biron 2010; Brown et al. 2011). Results from a
recent meta-analytic review of unethical choices in the
workplace identified non-conscious personal biases or judgment
errors (i.e., obedience to authority, not anticipating
consequences) as major sources for unethical conduct (Kish-
Gephart et al. 2010). Ethical leadership may be a necessary, but
not sufficient, deterrent for unethical behavior. Leaders may in
fact make poor decisions, especially in situations that are
equivocal and uncertain. By all accounts, promoting EDM at the
leader level requires more than ethical guidelines and leaders of
strong moral character. It requires that leaders are equipped
with skills that help them navigate ethical dilemmas vis-a `-vis
sensemaking, as sensemaking is the basis for leader decision-
making under these circumstances (Mumford et al. 2007a, 2009;

Strange and Mumford 2005).
Leader Constraints, Sensemaking, and EDM
Not only do the complexities and high-stakes situations of
today’s work environment place leaders at the center of ethical
risk, but leaders are also subject to a variety of
personal, situational, and environmental constraints, all of
which can impede their abilities to adequately interpret and
make sense of these ethical situations. With regard to personal
constraints, personal schemas (Fiske and Taylor 1991) and
implicit theories (Cooper 1981) can help leaders understand and
categorize the complexities in their environment; however, this
selective attention can sometimes cause leaders to overlook
critical aspects of the situation and to classify information using
biased schemes (Major 1980). Failure to attend to important
aspects of ethical dilemmas can contribute to ineffective
sensemaking and ultimately poor EDM. Biases, such as the self-
serving fairness bias (Messick and Bazerman 2001) and the
selfevaluation bias (Novicevic et al. 2008), can also inhibit
effective sensemaking and contribute to ethical misconduct.
Additionally, judgment errors can constrain leaders’ abilities to
make effective ethical decisions. Because heuristicbased
processing is common when facing time pressures, a stress
typical in leadership positions, leaders may engage in several
‘‘rule of thumb’’ judgments when interpreting ethical situations
(Goodie and Crooks 2004; Kruglanski and Ajzen 2006). These
heuristics (e.g., representativeness, availability, and salience
heuristics) can introduce judgment errors, leading to inadequate
sensemaking and unethical decisions (Nisbett and Ross 1980).
Trevin ˜o’s (1986) person–situation interactionist model
recognizes additional individual characteristics such as low ego-
strength, low ﬁeld dependence, and external locus of control
which can constrain cognitions and impede EDM. Finally,
research indicates leaders’ personality characteristics such as
high narcissism and low conscientiousness can also constrain
EDM (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009). Besides personal
constraints, situational constraints can also hinder leaders’

abilities to make sense of ethical situations and negatively
impact EDM (Milgram 1965). For example, performance
pressures typically inherent in leaders’ high-stakes jobs have
shown to hinder cognitively complex processes (Baumeister
1984: Lewis and Linder 1997) and ethical behavior (Goldberg
and Greenberg 1994; Jasanoff 1993). Other situational pressures
such as time (Trevin õ 1986), resources, and competition (Staw
and Szwajkowski 1975) can also promote inadequate
sensemaking and unethical behavior. Selart and Johansen (2011)
demonstrated how stress not only decreased abilities to
recognize ethical dilemmas but also negatively influenced EDM
among leaders within an engineering company. The ambiguities
experienced by leaders in their complex work environments
have also been associated with interpersonal conflict (Baucus
1994; Spector and Jex 1998) which in turn can negatively
impact EDM (Stenmark and Mumford 2011). Finally,
reinforcements within a given situation can influence EDM with
financial incentives for unethical behaviors greatly tempting
leaders to make less ethical choices (Chen 2010; Hegarty and
Sims 1978; Knouse and Giacalone 1992; Trevino et al. 1985).
Environmental constraints both within and outside the
organization can also influence leader EDM (Brommer et al.
1987; Jones 1991). Within the organization, codes of ethics
(Loe et al. 2000; O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005), organizational
support (Jones and Hiltebeitel 1995), the socialization process
(Smith and Carroll 1984), and corporate structure (Skinner et al.
1988) can all influence decisions made by leaders. Because the
organizational culture guides behavior and instills corporate
norms, unethical cultures can greatly constrain leaders’ abilities
to make ethical decisions (Stevens 2008; Sweeney et al. 2010;
Trevin õ 1986). In fact, Kaptein (2008) identified eight factors
which can influence an organization’s ethical culture and
promote EDM among leaders. Even a leader’s national culture
can constrain one’s ability to accurately make sense of a
situation (Chen 2003; Husted and Allen 2008).
Leader EDM: Sensemaking Strategies

Constraining forces, across the personal, situational, and
environmental levels, negatively influence EDM via decreased
ethical awareness, ethical sensitivity, and ethical judgment.
Sensemaking is an inherent response to ambiguous, complex,
high-risk situations, including ethical dilemmas (Drazin et al.
1999; Weick 1995). Sensemaking alters the nature of the
relationship between constraints and EDM vis-a `-vis mental
model creation. Mental models, in response to ethical events,
are a guiding framework for scanning the environment for
information, evaluating that information, and appraising an
appropriate course of action—the basis of decision-making
(Hogarth and Makridakis 1981). Sensemaking, then, serves to
counteract the constraining factors that narrow information
search, information evaluation, and lead to poor appraisals by
creating mental models that broaden those searches and elicit
more efficacious appraisals. Ethical sensemaking, or the process
of mental model formation in response to an ethical event via
scanning and interpreting (Weick 1995), has been depicted as
occurring via peripheral cognitive processes, including those
described as strategies in the current model (Mumford et al.
2008). Indeed, sensemaking often relies upon or encompasses
multiple processes. For example, sensemaking is initially
guided by appraisals of ethical dilemmas. This appraisal is
influenced by relevant causes, goals, and ethical principles.
Following an appraisal, the problem is framed (Mumford et al.
1994, Tversky and Kahneman 1974) or judged as to whether it
has ethical implications. Problem appraisal and framing are
often thought to be
inherent to sensemaking as they are a part of environmental
scanning and interpretation (Weick 1995). Other cognitive
operations, however, may facilitate sensemaking, but are not
inherently combined with the sensemaking processes and only
facilitate the sensemaking process if executed effectively. Such
processes are those that require effort on the part of the
decision-maker. These cognitive operations often occur in
response to constraining factors limiting EDM. For example,

initial appraisals of an ethical event often evoke emotional
responses, given the high-stakes nature of ethical dilemmas.
These emotions must be managed appropriately or the effects
could inhibit the sensemaking process and overall quality of
EDM (Haidt 2003; Kligyte et al. 2009). Sensemaking is based
on the ability to accurately construct a problem situation
(Mumford et al. 1994; Weick 1995; Weick et al. 2005), and
problem construction may be influenced by multiple factors,
both situational and individual (Mumford et al. 2008). Leaders
need to be skilled with strategies for navigating their complex
environments, specifically strategies that help form correct
judgment about the nature, dynamics, and potential
consequences of situations in which they find themselves. The
Sensemaking Intuition Model (Sonenshein 2007) emphasizes
and more accurately depicts the issue-construction process that
is sensemaking and those general factors that influence the
sensemaking process during EDM. However, the model is
limited to those potentially constraining factors while ignoring
compensating strategies that can facilitate the multi-step
sensemaking process. Sonenshein spoke of the sensemaking
process relative to tactics leaders engage in to facilitate this
process, but never directly identified strategies for sensemaking.
Researchers examining EDM from an intuitive perspective have
suggested possible compensatory actions or techniques to
improve EDM (e.g., Detert et al. 2008; McDevitt et al. 2007).
An inherent need for compensatory strategies is demonstrated
through extensive EDM research on individual and social
constraints for EDM, especially for those in complex
environments (e.g., Brady and Wheeler 1996; Butterfield et al.
2000; Haines et al. 2008; Jones and Hiltebeitel 1995; Kahneman
2003; McDevitt and Van Hise 2002; Moore and Loewenstein
2004; Schweitzer et al. 2005; Street et al. 2001; Tenbrunsel and
Messick 2004; Trevino and Youngblood 1990; Yaniv and
Kleinberger 2000). For example, these examinations empirically
demonstrate the negative influence of bias and judgment error,
such as fundamental attribution or misattribution of issue

importance, on EDM. However, this research offers few
solutions for combating these sensemaking constraints.
Additionally, social factors such as ethical norms or exposure to
unethical events have been shown to limit
123
EDM, but compensating strategies remain unknown. The
limitation of this research and previous models of EDM is a
lack of emphasis and recognition of the role of sensemaking in
EDM. Woiceshyn (2011), in a recent model of EDM, recognized
the role of the subconscious and the need for leaders to be
equipped with ‘‘tools’’ for recognizing ethical dilemmas and
deriving appropriate decision courses. However, recent models,
like that proposed by McDevitt et al. (2007), explicate
individual and social factors inﬂuencing EDM, but
simplistically diagram the decisionmaking process as being
extremely rational and provide few suggestions regarding
compensatory actions. Moreover, papers like these highlight the
lack of empirical support for many of the parameters of EDM
models, especially for compensatory actions. Resolving ethical
dilemmas, especially those faced by organizational leaders,
requires not only recognition of those individual and social
factors that disrupt EDM, but recognition of the role of
sensemaking in EDM and application of strategies that could
compensate for these constraining factors. Revisions to EDM
models have led to targeted investigations of cognitive
operations thought to improve the accuracy and completeness of
the sensemaking process (Mumford et al. 2008). These
operations, however, have been described as peripheral and
automatic processes for ethical sensemaking. Recent research
efforts have investigated these operations and found that they
are neither inherent to sensemaking nor automatic, but require
conscious, effortful processing. Thus, we consider these
processes as sensemaking-promoting strategies. As such, these
strategies may be executed more or less effectively. Our model
considers the tactical approaches that make for more or less

effective sensemaking strategies and considers the relevancy of
these strategies for leader EDM, weighing the relevant and
unique pressures faced by leaders. Although the sensemaking
literature has effectively demonstrated that sensemaking ability
impacts EDM (Hogarth and Makridakis 1981; Mumford et al.
2007a, 2009; Sonenshein 2007; Strange and Mumford 2005;
Weick 1988, 1995), and the sensemaking process has
demonstrated utility in the leadership decision-making literature
(Mumford et al. 2007a, 2009; Strange and Mumford 2005), there
lacks an equally well-defined literature that demonstrates
specific, trainable sensemaking strategies to be applied in the
context of ethical leadership. While sensemaking strategies
exist in addition to those proposed, decision rules for inclusion
were based not only on the inferences of research described in
the following sections, as these strategies are thought to be
directly applicable to leader EDM, but also as they have been
empirically tested in leadership contexts and under the
constraints of ethical dilemmas often faced by leaders.
These strategies address the difficulties in accurately
representing problem situations from which information is
interpreted, integrated, and used as a basis for decisionmaking.
Moreover, these strategies prevent moral disengagement via
sensemaking by aiding leaders in accurately representing ethical
dilemmas and the problems they present—thus, reducing the
possibility for reconstruction, role minimization, or blame
shifting (Bandura 1999; Tenbrunsel and Messick 2004). The
following sections define and describe four trainable strategies,
the research through which these strategies were identified, and
the implications that these strategies have for leader EDM (see
Table 1). The current model is the first to consider ethical
sensemaking constraints and strategies unique to leaders based
on the premise that EDM differs between leaders and non-
leaders as a function of the unique constraints they face.
Moreover, the current model depicts and describes tactics
thought to enhance the effectiveness of leader sensemaking
strategies.

Emotion Regulation
Emotions are an inherent component of the leadership process
(Ashforth and Humphrey 1995; Ashkanasy and Tse 2000;
Barsade and Gibson 2007; Fineman 1997), including leader
decision-making (George 2000; Sayegh et al. 2004). EDM is
one form of decision-making that is especially susceptible to
emotional reactions (Coughlan and Connolly 2008; Gaudine and
Thorne 2001; Haidt 2003; Henik 2008; Kligyte et al. 2009;
Rajeev and Bhattacharyya 2007), given that they are often
complex, conflict-ridden, and potentially have serious
consequences (Werhane 2002). Forgas (1995) suggests that
substantive processing or cognition that occurs during complex,
ambiguous tasks, including decision-making, is increasingly
influenced by affect and emotion. Leaders, who are under
ethical risk and make ethical decisions under conditions of
uncertainty and equivocality may be even more susceptible to
the influence of emotion and require special compensating
tactics. The findings on affect, emotion, and complex cognition
are mixed. Significant work exists demonstrating that certain
emotions, mainly positive in valence, may aid decision-making
(Chuang 2007; Isen 2002). However, evidence at the discrete
emotional level shows that some negative emotions are defined
by appraisal properties that promote cognitive operations (e.g.,
information search, information processing) central to decision-
making (Elfenbein 2007; Lerner and Keltner 2001; Tiedens and
Linton 2001), whereas positive emotions may cause gross
overestimation or oversight (Lerner and Keltner 2001; Mackie
and Worth 1991; Martin et al. 1993). Still others have shown
that negative emotions are typically related to
54 C. E. Thiel et al.
123
poor decision-making (Bodenhausen 1993; Chuang 2007; Clore
et al. 1994; Lerner and Keltner 2000; Pfister and Bo ¨hm 2008;
Schwarz and Clore 2007). Given the inconsistent pattern of
results, researchers such as Lerner and Keltner (2000) have
suggested it is best to consider the emotional effects at the

discrete level. With regard to ethical decision, research suggests
that both positive and negative emotions can limit one’s ability
to recognize and respond appropriately to ethical events (Cohen
2010; Connelly et al. 2004; Gaudine and Thorne 2001; Haidt
2003 Lerner et al. 2004; Preston et al. 2007) lending further
support for consideration at the discrete level. More
importantly, the research strongly suggests that emotions alter
or impinge upon the decision-maker’s focus during EDM,
resulting in disruption of additional compensating processes
related to sensemaking such as initial appraisal, framing, or
forecasting of an ethical event. Effective leadership and
emotion regulation are increasingly seen as corollaries
(Ashkanasy and Tse 2000; Bass 2002; Caruso et al. 2002;
George 2000; Pescosolido 2002, 2005; Pirola-Merlo et al.
2002). Emotion regulation is defined as strategies that determine
how, when, and what emotions are experienced (Gross 1998).
Within an EDM context, recent models suggest that certain
feeling or emotional states need to be managed to promote
ethical behavior (Cohen 2010; Gaudine and Thorne 2001; Henik
2008), with at least one empirical investigation linking
emotional intelligence, which emotion regulation is considered
a part of, as a predictor of ethical behavior (Deshpande et al.
2008). However, few empirical
investigations have tested the influence of emotion regulation
on EDM from a sensemaking perspective. One recently
conducted study under the Mumford et al. (2008) framework,
investigated whether three emotion regulation strategies
(cognitive reappraisal, relaxation, or suppression) might
mitigate the potentially harmful effects of incidental anger on
ethical decisions (Kligyte et al. 2009). Findings indicated that
individuals experiencing incidental anger made worse ethical
decisions compared to those experiencing fear. Emotion
regulation strategies, however, had important moderating
effects on incidental anger. Specifically, engaging in either
cognitive reappraisal or relaxation offset the effects of anger on
EDM. This finding, in particular, has important implications for

leaders, who commonly experience anger or frustration under
conditions of uncertainty and equivocality. Moreover, these
findings provide evidence for trainable strategies that could be
used by leaders to compensate for constraining EDM factors
they face. Having leaders undergo training interventions
promoting the detection of emotions and application of specific
emotion regulation strategies could potentially encourage sound
judgment, via complete and accurate sensemaking, and,
ultimately, EDM. Discrete emotions like anger often incite
punitive evaluations of others and outward blame attributions
(Gault and Sabini 2000; Nabi 2003; Smith and Ellsworth 1985),
precursors of moral disengagement. Reduction of these
evaluations limits the possibility of disengagement via accurate
problem representation and mental model formation. Leaders
utilizing appropriate
Table 1 Summary of leader sensemaking strategies and the key
findings on their application
Sensemaking strategy Strategy tactics
Emotion regulation—behaviorally or cognitively systematically
downgrading emotional reactions
Cognitive reappraisal or relaxation strategies mitigated
influence of anger on EDM (Kligyte et al. 2009) Reappraisal of
secondary appraisals of anger versus primary appraisals
enhanced sensememaking (Thiel et al. 2011)
Self-reflection—accessing experiential knowledge, acquired
personally or vicariously (case-based learning)
Process-focus while reflecting on positive past experiences
increased application of experiential knowledge to future ethical
decisionmaking situations (Antes et al. 2012) Future-focused
temporal orientation facilitated self-reflection and subsequent
ethical decision-making (Martin et al. 2011)
Forecasting—making predictions about potential future
outcomes through current observations
Identifying critical causes in ethical dilemmas prior to
forecasting facilitates accuracy in forecasting and ethical
decision-making (Stenmark et al. 2010) Distinguishing between

critical and non-critical consequences facilitated accuracy in
forecasting and ethical decision-making (Stenmark et al. 2011)
Information integration—combining related elements
holistically via recognition of underlying conceptual
relationships between issues and potential issues
Framing an ethical issue from an organizational perspective
enhanced information integration and subsequent ethical
decision-making (Caughron et al. 2011) Out-group competition
with selfish undertones threatened information integration and
ethical decision-making (Caughron et al. 2012)
123
emotion regulation strategies when confronted with an ethical
dilemma are more likely to opt for the ethical alternative. As
theorized and then empirically confirmed by Groves et al.
(2008), managerial EDM might be influenced by
thinking/cognitive styles. Specifically, those utilizing purely
linear cognitive style, characterized by rational thinking and
attention to concrete data and facts, and those employing a
strictly nonlinear thinking style, defined by attention to
feelings, emotions, and intuitions, are likely to be at a
disadvantage compared to those using a balanced form of both
cognitive styles. Balancing linear and nonlinear thinking styles
allows individuals to supplement logic and rationality with
intuition and emotion, adding context to complex situations and
producing more ethical decisions. This in mind, it is clear that
an inability to regulate emotions can hinder the nonlinear
thinking style, making the achievement of balance much more
difficult.
Self-Reflection
When leaders are confronted with complex and ambiguous
circumstances, they may draw upon their personal experiences
in order to appropriately make sense of the situation and
generate potential decisions (Gardner et al. 2005; Mumford et
al. 2000; Scott et al. 2005), a process referred to by Woiceshyn
(2011) as ‘‘integration by essentials.’’ This process of self-

reflection is thought by many to reciprocally influence emotion
regulation, as self-awareness is thought to generate reappraisal
regulation tendencies (Mayer and Salovey 1997; Gross 1998).
Reflection on prior experiences, both personal and those learned
vicariously, is thought to be influential in making ethical
decisions (Caldwell 2010; Moberg and Calkins 2001; Werhane
2002). Still others have suggested that some form of
selfmonitoring or self-awareness moderates situational and
individual influences on leader ethical behavior (Brown and
Trevin õ 2006). Jonassen and Hernandez-Serrano (2002)
suggest that experiential knowledge is indispensable to decision
makers because it is normally comprised of rich information
about causes, consequences, and contingencies. These aspects of
past experiences are likely to be particularly valuable when one
is faced with novel and complex situations, similar to those
frequently encountered by leaders. Leaders in complex
environments may be less likely to self reflect when
environmental and organizational pressures are potent. Under
such conditions, leaders become subject to biases that promote
poor judgment and become more morally disengaged because
they do not consider their actual motives. Thus, self-reflection
could improve leader EDM by helping them reflect on their
motives and draw useful information from past experiences (Do
¨rner and Schaub 1994), which tend to improve ethical judgment
via
accurate sensemaking. Due to the limiting nature of the leader’s
environment, Schwandt (2005) suggests integrating
sensemaking with learning to promote reflectivity. According to
Schwandt (2005), the fusion of these processes contributes to a
leader’s development, enhancing reflective judgments.
Improving one’s ability to reflect will also facilitate better
ethical judgment via accurate sensemaking. It is important to
note, however, that this strategy is only useful if a leader makes
a conscious effort to activate the necessary past knowledge, and
subsequently put it to use. Self-reflection and self-awareness
have been considered important indicators of ethical behavior,

but few empirical investigations have considered how to pursue
self-reflection in an organizational context. Antes et al. (2012)
found that a focus on processes from a positive past experience
resulted in the greatest application of one’s reflection to a new
problem. This pattern was also associated with better EDM.
When recalling a positive experience, people are more likely to
remember specific details of the event compared to negative
experiences where such details may be difficult to recall due to
their negative valence (Argembeau and Van der Linden 2003).
Predicting future personal experiences may also prove useful
for leaders engaged in sensemaking. In their study, Martin et al.
(2011) investigated the role of temporal orientation (past-
focused vs future-focused) and affective frame (positive vs
negative) in reflecting about personal experiences while
working through ethical problems. Consistent with previous
research (Liberman et al. 2002), this study showed that
contemplating future prospective personal experiences
encouraged the use of EDM strategies, leading to better
decisions. Self-reflection, both past- and future-focused, appears
to be a useful strategy for leaders hoping to improve the
ethicality of their choices. This process, however, is not
isolated, but is influenced by one’s social environment
(Greenberg et al. 2007; Gibbons 1990). Field examinations of
this model should consider such influences when testing the
effectiveness of self-reflection in leader EDM. Based on current
evidencevis-a `-vissensemaking,drawingonpastexperiences
allows leaders to consider important aspects of previous events,
such as causes, consequences, and contingencies, which are
critical to making an informed, effective decision (Stenmark et
al. 2010). Focusing on the process versus the outcome of the
past experiences, as well as maintaining a positive affective
frame, will likely enhance EDM and reduce potential for moral
disengagement.
Forecasting
While reflecting on prior experiences aids in accurately and
completely making sense of an ethical situation, leaders might

also benefit from making future assessments, or
123
forecasting. Defined as making predictions about potential
future outcomes by observing the current situation (Pant and
Starbuck 1990), forecasting is a cognitive strategy that helps
leaders solve complex problems by generating multiple problem
solutions. Forecasting is intertwined with previous sensemaking
strategies, as regulation of incidental negative emotions has
been linked to accurate forecasting (Lerner and Gonzalez 2005)
and self-reflection is often a necessary process in forming future
predictions (Do ¨rner and Schaub 1994). Forecasting improves
performance for many complex tasks, including creative
problem-solving (Byrne et al. 2010), planning (Marta et al.
2005), and leader cognition (Vincent et al. 2002). One benefit of
forecasting is that it helps leaders understand complex, ill-
defined situations, like ethical dilemmas, by identifying sources
of uncertainty in the environment (Hogarth and Makridakis
1981). Forecasting facilitates mental model formation by
helping leaders accurately predict the consequences of their
potential decisions. Accurate predictions are not trivial
considering that many of the ethical decisions leaders face have
high-stakes consequences. EDM is limited by a number of
individual level factors, including personal biases (Trevino et
al. 2006). Organizational leaders in particular are susceptible to
a number of biases as a function of the ethical risk placed upon
them (Banaji et al. 2003; Messick and Bazerman 1996; Moore et
al. 2006). Highly detrimental among these is the bias to
minimize the potential consequences involved in an ethical
dilemma (Messick and Bazerman 1996), which contributes to
moral disengagement (Bandura 1999). Forecasting, in light of
these findings, is a logical compensatory cognitive process for
these biases. Making predictions, however, is difficult and many
predictions can be inaccurate, leading to overly punitive
evaluations of others or overly optimistic evaluations regarding
outcomes affecting one’s self (Diekmann 2007). Recent

empirical works suggest forecasting tactics can limit such
inaccuracy and lead to better EDM via sensemaking. Stenmark
et al. (2010) concluded that leaders should identify critical
causes of the ethical dilemma. Research suggests leaders use
causes as the basis for forecasting alternative outcomes in
complex problems (Cavaleri and Sterman 1997; Maani and
Maharaj 2004). By recognizing causes, leaders can more easily
determine the appropriate course of action needed to solve the
problem and execute a successful plan. While focusing on
causes is important, Maani and Maharaj’s (2004) complex
decisionmaking study found that participants performed better
when focusing on the big picture. Additionally, Stenmark et al.
(2010) found that criticality of causes significantly predicted
both forecast quality and decision ethicality. These researchers
also found that the number of causes identified did not
significantly predict forecast quality or
decision ethicality. Since identification of causes requires
extensive effort (Feldman 2003), leaders may not possess
enough cognitive resources when faced with a complex ethical
decision to identify multiple causes. Additionally, limiting the
number of key causes can reduce the demands on working
memory (Hogarth and Makridakis 1981). Finally, Mumford et
al. (2001) suggest that using a complex set of causes to frame
solutions is not always beneficial in complex environments.
These findings suggest leaders will develop better quality
forecasts and ultimately make more ethical decisions when
focusing on a limited number of critical causes. This will focus
leaders’ attention to the most relevant aspects of the situation,
creating solutions to the ethical dilemma which will change
elements related to the cause of the initial problem. Evidence
has recently come to light which suggests that leaders should
identify critical consequences of one’s actions when forecasting
outcomes. Research suggests that the number and characteristics
of consequences considered affect the success of forecasting
efforts (Hammond 1990; Hershey et al. 1990; Mumford et al.
2001). Specifically, considering critical consequences of

different courses of actions allows the leader to anticipate
potential outcomes that could be detrimental to followers. By
identifying the most critical consequences, the leader can
continue to forecast outcomes, further refining the solution until
the best ethical decision is reached (Mumford et al. 2001).
Stenmark et al. (2011) found that criticality of consequences
identified significantly predicted both forecast quality and
decision ethicality. Higher quality forecasts were also related to
more ethical decisions. Finally, forecast quality mediated the
relationship between the criticality of the consequences
identified and decision ethicality suggesting that forecasting
influences EDM through the ability to recognize the most
critical consequences of the ethical dilemma. Finally, leaders
should identify many consequences of different actions when
forecasting outcomes. Identifying multiple consequences
improves the quality of forecasting by causing the leader to
consider more potential outcomes of different courses of action,
leading to more extensive forecasts. With more extensive
forecasts, the leader can more readily identify potential
problems with different solutions and can continue to revise the
solution or formulate backup plans which will hopefully aid in
the implementation of more effective and ethical solutions
(Mumford et al. 2002). Stenmark et al. (2011) showed that the
number of consequences considered did predict forecast quality.
This suggests that focusing on many potential consequences
allows the leader to develop more extensive forecasts. Leaders
who fail to effectively forecast outcomes by ignoring critical
causes, critical consequences, and multiple
123
consequences are more likely to ignore important pieces of
information when sensemaking—which may lead to poor ethical
decisions. In complex, ambiguous environments, leaders must
formulate effective plans in order to respond to the situation.
Failure to identify the most critical causes may cause leaders to
waste time, energy, and resources on implementing solutions

which do not address the primary cause of the ethical dilemma.
Since the decisions of leaders affect multiple parties, failure to
consider the critical consequences of different courses of action
could lead to actions that negatively impact the organization.
Additionally, failure to consider alternative consequences for
different courses of action could cause leaders to ignore
potential harmful consequences, leading to poor judgment and
destructive decisions. Forecasting under these conditions,
however, allows leaders to more accurately predict
consequences of different behaviors, promoting accurate
sensemaking and reducing the chances of behaving unethically
in ambiguous, complex situations. By identifying the most
critical causes of the ethical dilemma, leaders can more
effectively focus limited resources on addressing the source of
the problem. By considering multiple and critical consequences,
leaders can continue refining problem solutions until the most
effective solution is reached.
Information Integration
During sensemaking in relation to EDM, individuals form
mental models that influence information gathering and
interpretation. This is a recurring process in which additional
information is integrated into mental models that are constantly
being formed, revised, and modified (JohnsonLaird 1983).
Information integration is a continuous process by which
information is interpreted at each step of the sensemaking
process and applied or not applied to currently active mental
models. This strategy, while necessary to sensemaking, can
serve as a compensatory factor for sensemaking under certain
conditions. Emotion regulation, self-reflection, and forecasting
may be both a corollary of and an influencing factor of
information integration, as each can enhance the quality of
information integration (Do ¨rner and Schaub 1994; Gaudine
and Thorne 2001; Scott et al. 2005). Woiceshyn (2011)
describes the information integration process in EDM as
‘‘bringing to bear relevant information,’’ a process by which
subconscious cognitive operations retrieve relevant experiences,

knowledge, or information that informs the active sensemaking
process. Information integration, using this framework,
influences both the representation of an ethical problem and the
formation of appropriate responses. The extent to which that
information is meaningfully applied to EDM, from which
potential courses of action
can be formulated and outcomes forecasted, is contingent upon
the processes by which the information is integrated (Mumford
et al. 1996; Weick 1988; Weick 1995). Moreover, the nature by
which information is integrated into a coherent mental model
greatly influences the range of possible alternatives considered
by the decision-maker during an ethical dilemma (Caughron et
al. 2011; Hogarth and Makridakis 1981). Previous research
suggests that initial information gathering steps set the tone and
determine the trajectory of the crisis at hand (Weick 1988). This
has very real repercussions for a leader facing an ethical crisis,
as ideally a leader would want many possible avenues of action
to consider. Because ethical crises are not always black and
white with clearly delineated right and wrong answers, a leader
might benefit from being able to select a best response among
many responses (Mumford et al. 2008). A series of empirical
investigations tested the relationship between information
integration and EDM, grounded in sensemaking, specifically
examining factors both detrimental and promotional to
information integration. Caughron et al. (2012) found that a
perceived threat by an individual, regardless if they were a
competitor or a colleague, led to lower quality information
integration and lower EDM. Leaders need to be consciously
aware of their biases as they relate to others, especially when
dealing with ethical crises of an interpersonal nature. Indeed,
one’s biases during information integration can have
irreversible effects on sensemaking (Weick 1988) and promote
moral disengagement (Bandura 1999). Externally,
environmental pressures can alter what outcomes are valued
when examining and integrating certain information, leading to
some information being emphasized over other (Caughron et al.

2011). External pressures including conflicting organizational
goals, budget issues, recent events, and focal points for
improvement in the organization can influence information
integration (Weick 1988). Even when leaders have successfully
scanned their environment internally and externally, sources of
their information including ingroups, out-groups, superiors,
subordinates, and other individuals in competition with the
leader can alter the interpretation of an ethical crisis (Caughron
et al. 2012). An effective leader must be aware of these external
influences and adjust accordingly in order to completely
integrate information into a coherent model from which the
leader can generate the ‘‘best’’ possible response to an ethical
crisis. Information integration may be a critical strategy for
leaders to employ for accurate and complete sensemaking to
occur, but leaders must be aware of those techniques that
enhance information integration. One such process, perspective
taking, was found to influence information integration
(Caughron et al. 2011). Specifically, taking a
123
‘‘broad perspective’’ when faced with an ethical crisis
promoted information integration and EDM. However, it was
noted that simply identifying a diverse set of information
regarding an issue was not sufficient; rather an increase in EDM
was not observed unless individuals were able to forge an
understandable interpretation of the given situation. Framing of
an ethical problem was also found to impact the quality of
information integration in this investigation. It was found that
framing an ethical crisis from an organizational perspective (has
consequences for me and others) and not from a personal
perspective promoted sensemaking and EDM. Leaders may
benefit, in terms of ‘‘bringing relevant information to bear,’’ if
they approach their ethical dilemmas as being consequential for
them and those under their sphere of influence. Sensemaking is
incomplete without information integration, and leaders need to
be aware of those techniques that promote or inhibit information

integration. Identifying internal and external factors that inhibit
information integration and taking conscious steps to reduce
their impact will result in better mental models and subsequent
ethical decisions. In addition, considering the perspective of
others and acknowledging the overall organizational impact of
ethical crises will increase the likelihood that a leader will have
the best mental model available that integrates information
thoroughly, leading to the best course of action.
Conclusion
Rational theories have dominated the study of EDM, yet do not
adequately outline causal mechanisms of EDM. EDM models
grounded in sensemaking provide a framework for
understanding these causal processesas they relate to leaders by
demonstrating the complex ethical problem recognition and
processes, and those factors influencing each. Leaders engage in
sensemaking when faced with ethical dilemmas and do so
amidstuncertainty and equivocality, both common features of
contemporary organizations (Sonenshein 2007).
Sensemaking,however,isnotaone-dimensionalprocess,but
requires careful scanning, interpreting, and analyzing of
complex ethical dilemmas. Individual, environmental, and
socialpressures often limittheaccuracy and completenessof a
leader’s sensemaking. Sensemaking strategies, including
emotion regulation, self-reflection, forecasting, and information
integration promote effective leader EDM via accurate and
complete sensemaking. The proposed model of leader
sensemaking for EDM serves as a platform for further
examination of factors influencing leader EDM as it identifies
the compensatory influence that cognitive strategies have on
sensemaking. These strategies, however, are not comprehensive
and are
focused on intra-individual strategies for sensemaking.
Behavioral strategies or those that involve making sense of
complex ethical dilemmas via social interaction have not been
proposed in the current model. Research has clearly
demonstrated interpersonal components of EDM (Detert et al.

2008; Gaudine and Thorne 2001; Haidt 2001; Henik 2008; Jones
1991; Mumford et al. 2006), calling for investigation of inter-
individual strategies. One such strategy proposed by Mumford
et al. (2006) is seeking help, which is accomplished via actively
collecting additional information from credible sources,
including other individuals. Strategies such as these may have a
promoting influence on leader EDM and should be investigated.
Given the potency of sensemaking strategies for facilitating
EDM, organizations should promote strategy application across
all levels of leadership. One of the most obvious mechanisms
for accomplishing this goal is training in EDM with
sensemaking as an underlying framework. Instruction in
sensemaking, as a mechanism for improving organizational
decision-making and risk assessment, has been suggested by
previous researchers (Weick and Sutcliffe 2001; Sterman 2001;
Vogus and Welbourne 2003). Strategy-based training, aimed at
improving sensemaking, has proven to be an effective design
across scientific and academic settings (Kligyte et al. 2007;
Mumford et al. 2008). Additionally, ethics training grounded in
sensemaking has been suggested as an effective method for
training managers and other organizational leaders (Sonenshein
2007). Using sensemaking as a basis for ethics training provides
a foundation for using interactive and analytical training
methods through which the benefits of strategies can be
demonstrated. For example, organizational leaders could be
asked to examine case examples of ethical dilemmas similar to
those they face in their work environments and interpret how
strategies would help them make ethical decisions under those
circumstances described in the case examples. Decision-making
activities are integral to strategy-based training as leaders need
to know not only what strategies are effective for promoting
EDM, but how to actually apply them in context. Organizational
culture practices regarding ethics have long been found to have
some level of influence on the quality of EDM (Loe et al. 2000;
Mumford et al. 2007b) within an organization. Organizations
should use this influence to encourage leaders to integrate the

sensemaking strategies into their normative decision processes.
For example, leaders could be encouraged to forecast
downstream consequences for the multiple stakeholders
involved in a dilemma. Formal or informal reminders to apply
sensemaking principles and strategies in decisionmaking
encourage leaders to be aware of the strategies, apply them in
real-time decision-making situations, and remind them that the
organization values the strategies and
123
ethical conduct. Traditional policies regarding organizational
ethics focus on organizational values or codes of conduct.
While these policies and rules are valuable guides for thinking
about an ethical problem, they do not safeguard against poor
EDM. Organizations should promote better EDM via support for
strategy application in normative decision processes. Finally,
organizations should promote strategy application and improved
EDM via leader self-management of decision processes. Leaders
need to be encouraged to reason through past work situations
and dilemmas after they are removed from the immediate
pressures and consequences of those situations. Self-developed
case studies, a related concept,have
foundsupportinbusinessethics trainingprograms (Laditka and
Houck 2006). Reflection on past experiences should promote
improved sensemaking and application of
strategiesbecauseleaderswillbeabletoobjectivelyexamine causal
and constraining factors which influenced their decision-
making. Leaders should be encouraged to examine the cognitive
processes activated during sensemaking and the sensemaking
strategies identified here. EDM models, grounded in
sensemaking, provide an appropriate framework for examining
the unique ethical dilemmas faced by organizational leaders.
The current model extends previous models by proposing
compensatory strategies for leaders in overcoming constraining
individual and social EDM factors facing leaders, which are a
corollary of their complex environments. These strategies, when

appropriately applied, can improve the accuracy and
completeness of sensemaking and promote EDM. Organizations
should strive to make leaders more aware of the sensemaking
process as it pertains to EDM and provide pathways through
which leaders adopt and apply these sensemaking strategies into
their EDM approach. Through this and future efforts, leaders
will be better skilled for behaving ethically in complex
organizations.

After reading the articles and viewing the videos in this weeks r.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to After reading the articles and viewing the videos in this weeks r.docx

Similar to After reading the articles and viewing the videos in this weeks r.docx (20)

More from nettletondevon

More from nettletondevon (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

After reading the articles and viewing the videos in this weeks r.docx